|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:This goes directly against the examples given earlier, where WaPo has frequently published extremely negative stories of both Amazon and Blue Origin. If you are going to claim that the journalists and editors who published/approved those stories simply do not care about their careers... well, I think it would be a pretty laughable claim. No it doesn't, they're two different things. The examples given earlier are examples that the WaPo is not explicitly disallowed from being critical about Amazon/Bezos. Ytlaya is arguing that Bezos owning the WaPo poison's them on all reporting about Amazon/Bezos, even critical reporting, because Bezos is at the end of the day their boss and the person they're dependent on for money and human nature says you're incentivized to not piss off the person who gives you money and that will impact your decision making even if their are no explicit rules. And if you're going to claim that people don't think about if something will make their boss happy or not and try to predict that and make decisions around it, even if they were not explicitly told to... well, I think it would be a pretty laughable claim.
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
Antifa Turkeesian posted:If you’re thinking about it in terms of rhetoric, it would be foolish not to report on or acknowledge things known by other parties or discussed in other spaces—the Post would lose all legitimacy if it appeared to act as a propaganda organ for Jeff Bezos, like Pravda or some gilded-age rag. This doesn’t mean that the people making it are ignorant of the fact that they serve at the pleasure of Jeff Bezos. You might instead look for a consistent editorial attitude toward unionization, climate change, or taxation. To some degree, such a point of view is indistinguishable from the liberal worldview of the end-of-history era, so maybe the specific oligarch controlling the specific publication doesn’t matter very much against the operation of history and pure ideology. Yeah, when it really comes down to it I don't think Bezos is dictating on down from on high how articles should be written. There's nothing special about that editorial. Every major American news paper has published some form of that editorial in the last few years. But there's also nothing special about their reporting on Amazon. No one at the WaPo was Upton Sinclair writing the Jungle. They reported the same way most news reported on it. Their voice lines up with Bezos because they live in a world where everything lined up for people like Bezos. The specific oligarch doesn't matter much.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2021 00:45
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:If we had "post of the day" badges, you would get one. Capitalism can't fail it can only be failed
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2021 04:05
|
|
|
Another way to look at those numbers is that a percentage of the population of Seoul came out to protest. To get a comparable ratio in the US multiple major cities entire populations would be to mobilize. It helps when 10% of the county lives in one city with even more in the metro area. American protests need to take different forms and tangle with the fact that an empire the size of the US can now still instantly communicate from one side to the other.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2021 00:25
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Wasn't "fake news" what was often said by right wingers to dismiss news, developments, facts etc, that were inconvenient or refuted their narrative? It didn't have an exact academic definition here until it was time to argue about it and now it does.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2021 22:51
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:You're supporting anti-science, anti-vax sources of new, own your ableist poo poo. The greyzone is anti-mandate and anti-lockdown. I don't agree with their positions but they're important distinctions in their arguments. Hell, their anti-lockdown sentiments are backed by science I just don't agree with the conclusion they come to and think it's baby with the bathwater.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:If a source says that Medicare For All is the best option for Healthcare and also that you should remember to shoot through your ceiling with a handgun to kill the demons that live in your attic, it's probably worth wondering how they came to their conclusion on that first one. Undiagnosed schizophrenia? Like what's the point here?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2021 19:11
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:If a source masked nonsense recommendation or plainly false reports, then it is important to consider why that is, and if that issue if affecting their reporting on other topics. Oh, well in that example it's probably that they want Medicare for all to help with the urges to shoot demons in the attic which is a manifestation of fear presented through faulty senses. I also think Greyzone has gone overboard on their anti-mandate standpoint out of a more valid fear of government mandates and panic being used to control populations. So yeah I see your point but that doesn't validate or invalidate them. Their beliefs influence their reporting the same way belief influences all reporting.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
... So does anyone have an anti imperialist voice who's less weird about the pandemic?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
Ok, so which news sources with a focus on reporting on American imperialism do you recommend?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 03:44
|
|
|
So where did people learn this? I'd love to read some books on media analysis and criticism and what courses they're used in.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 05:00
|
|
|
Thanks! I had looked in the op but didn't see a list like this.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 13:07
|
|
|
And that's a real question, not a gotcha. I legit think the Greyzone sucks because I think they've allowed valid fears of government control to run wild during a moment where a lot of the things they're afraid of are valid actions to contain a pandemic. But I also think they do a lot of legitimate reporting and report on stories that otherwise get ignored. As an example, the piece posted earlier about them being anti-lockdown is well sourced and backed by solid information and is a good piece about abuses that took place during lockdown and used lockdown to commit them. It also has good information on the effects of lockdowns in different countries and what worked and didn't. I disagree with the conclusion they come to which is anti-all lockdown but the facts are there. So yeah, I'm curious what experts in this thread who are more knowledgeable than me about analyzing media think are better sources/outlets for the types of stories the Greyzone covers without the fear bias that you can see bleeding into their work. What are positive examples I can look at while I try to read more on analyzing media?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 17:09
|
|
|
Mainframe, I think I get that post but is the point then that no piece of media is free from bias so it's impossible to go "This place is decent and here are some of the problems they do have"? Because I read that post and it feels like I'm ending up in the same place, that the Greyzone like all media performs valid fact based reporting and also performs reporting meant to push a narrative and you need to separate that and question that. Which gets me to "The greyzone has good reporting but has a bias that gives some of their reporting an anti-vax mandate and an anti-lockdown position". But this whole thing started from the idea that the Greyzone can never be trusted because they're anti-vax and anti-science. So how does that break down? Is everything biased and you need to sort through it on your own? Are there sources so biased you can dismiss them out of hand? And does that go the other way? It feels like the argument is that they can be so biased they can be dismissed out of hand but the reverse can't be true, that you can't perfectly trust any media. But I'm not sure and if true I'm really not sure it applies to the Greyzone since again, I feel like I can sort through when they're pushing narrative and when they're reporting facts.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 17:58
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:And predictably we're back to the totalizing equivocation about sources. Everything's biased, so my absolutely terrible obvious channel for propaganda and conspiracy theories should be acceptable when it tells me things I find ideologically appealing. I'm trying to understand how to sort this out? I don't understand this hostility. How do I identify obviously terrible channels for propaganda and conspiracy from biased but well informed reporters? And again, my reading of the Greyzone is that they're well informed but have a bias and that bias has an effect on their reporting but from the thread my understanding is that there is nothing special about that. Every media has that problem due to inherent human bias. So what causes them to cross the line?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
Pharohman777 posted:Calling myanmar protesters agents of the US because they oppose the military coup in myanmar. Ok, so if a source repeatedly publishes false information that helps push a narrative it's invalid? That's a pretty fair standard but that invalidates a lot of sources.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:Why do you guys keep calling DV "professor"? Is it some sort of inside joke? I think people are being mean but I have always assumed he's in academia or something considered how often he's cited as an expert. Anyways, I get why the Greyzone is a bad source for a lot of stories. I'm not disagreeing with any of that. But I don't understand what makes them so uniquely bad when all of the problems being described keep being described as universal problems and can be observed in many different organizations. Is that quantifiable so you can then say "This organization is so untrustworthy that you can dismiss everything out of hand", is it like porn where you can't define it but you know it when you see it, or is that wrong and you can't actually do that with source?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 19:53
|
|
|
Gotcha, and that makes sense. So there's nothing special about them and with any source you need to look at who's doing the reporting, their interests and biases, and this can apply to any media. So you can't just dismiss anything out of hand but you can recognize patterns to give yourself an idea of their credibility. But there is no definitive "good" sources vs "bad" sources. So I should keep reading the Greyzone, filtering their reporting through what I understand of their biases and view and also read lots of other media and continue to try to seek out non-english reporting when I can to get a larger view as well as apply those same filters to those pieces of media. Am I understanding this right?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:Basically, yes. Although there's definitely, absolutely sources you can safely dismiss out of hand (e.g. Alex Jones). Yes but I think, from how I'm understanding all of this, it's backwards to say that you can safely dismiss someone like Alex Jones. You can't because if you dismiss everything he says you'll also be dismissing truths. However his credibility is so low that you can safely choose not to investigate his claims, you will not be losing important truth because it so rarely comes from him and if it does come from him it will also be coming from more credible sources. Credibility helps you decide the effort and work needed to validate but it doesn't allow you to dismiss or accept anything as a rule. Which yeah, in practice it means that you're ignoring Alex Jones because he's an idiot but the mechanics are different enough to call out. And obviously I don't want Alex as my only source of info since that is a mainline of disinformation but that also feels fairly universal. If I only read USA Today I'm going to get less disinformation but my understanding of the world would be very skewered to the biases and beliefs of whoever is working at USA Today. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Dec 15, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 20:25
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:The risk of accidentally missing out on "truths" by dismissing Alex Jones is pretty low, because if something is actually true then it'll be corroborated elsewhere, and there will be sources that are actually objectively more reliable than Alex Jones reporting on it. Yeah, I mean I said all of that. I was explaining the mechanics of analyzing media how I understood it and like I concluded the outcome looks the same, Alex is an idiot and it's not worth looking into what he says, but that's different than, Alex is an idiot so you know everything he says is a lie. And this thread seems to be about discussing this topic at that level so it felt important to make that distinction.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
Thorn Wishes Talon posted:I think it's a distinction without a practical difference, though. Most people have neither time nor the mental discipline that would enable them to take seriously and analyze critically literally any and every source they come across, so they naturally gravitate towards sources that have a higher signal-to-noise ratio, even if some of those signals originate from, say, government sources that the reader might view with strong disdain and contempt. Sure but I don't think this thread is about the average person. Unless I'm misunderstanding it the thread is about academically analyzing media so the distinction does have meaning. If this thread was just about which sources are good and which sources are bad it would have an approved list of sources and all the things people keep saying it's not about. But I do think your analysis makes sense for why people gravitate to specific sources, just not the mechanics of analyzing sources.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2021 23:28
|
|
|
My take away from this thread is that every media outlet is going to be susceptible to having conspiracy and untruths laundered through them. Russiagate can be false even if it was reported on by multiple people and that doesn't necessarily mean they're now illegitimate, it means that they were tricked and reported false info either because it supported narratives they wanted to push or fed into the reporters own biases and they did a poor job at confirming what they're reporting. It's also a huge multifaceted story and there's really no outlet that has gotten it 100% right or 100% wrong. Even deniers acknowledge attempts to manipulate by Russia, they generally just report that they don't see evidence for the claimed impact that other media organizations do see which is also the easiest place for their own beliefs to come in because it's murky and hard to answer the question of how much impact Russia had.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:For the tenth time, Right but doesn't that cut both ways? People are also calling sources illegitimate using conspiratorial blogs. It feels like there is a difference between you can't trust any sources and the argument that even reputable sources get it wrong. Even reputable sources get it wrong and are influenced by their own agenda and bias.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That all sources of information are imperfect does not actually justify using conspiratorial blogs. It is not possible to apply universal scrutiny to all sources, and it is not feasible to have a discussion in which bad faith mediators of information must be endlessly entertained. The equivocation between sources of information is specifically used by the mediators of this information to justify legitimizing sources that are spreading misinformation, especially information that is ideologically appealing or useable as a rhetorical cudgel. Ok, then I don't understand the difference between the idea that you can't use this to create a list of credible and not credible media but you can use it to rule out media that is not credible. Like I've read the OP and I know others are in a weird slap fight about credible sources which seems to not be the point of this thread but I really do just want to understand this concept. Forget about the Greyzone because I really don't care about them. I'm just trying to understand what criteria allows for some media to be considered so uncredible that all reporting from them is useless while other media is credible even if they also do things to push an agenda or their own bias. Is there an academic criteria here? Is it just a general "you know it when you see it?" How does that work? Is one of the books in your list a good place to start? If a student was wondering this in your class or whatever you do that allows you to study this what would you tell them?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2021 18:47
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Historians, mainly. And this would apply no matter the ideology that the media supports, right? Neutral or pro-imperialist sources also have the same problem of trying to report on remote wars in non-english speaking countries if they don't have the resources to go in and talk to native sources on the ground. I feel like this pretty much kills the reliability of any citizen reporting type outlets that are primarily aggregating from the internet but that's not surprising. Edit: to be clear, I'm not challenging what you said just trying to confirm the meaning. That when it comes down to it there really are not reliable English sources for the wars the US pushes and supports in foreign countries. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Dec 16, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
I mean, I have to disagree with the idea that journalists don't report on Twitter. It is incredibly common for journalists to live tweet events that they're at. Journalists live tweeting court cases as an example has become a major form of court reporting. Is it good? No, not really but if I'm learning anything from this thread it's that very few sources are actually credible and they're becoming worse because they're all trying to bombard you with information because of how much information the internet allows us to send out. Twitter is both a really common primary source and a common outlet for journalists to report things as they happen. To some degree Twitter has caused gonzo journalism to no longer be it's own thing and is just another form of journalism. And I agree Twitter is a bad source in isolation but I get the impression here anything is a bad source in isolation.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2021 23:26
|
|
|
Also with algorithms the Google search algorithm is not as biased as what Twitter or Facebook use to feed you news which both absolutely create an echo chamber. But if you're in the Google ecosystem those searches feed into their advertisements and news feeds and that also creates an echo chamber.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2021 23:40
|
|
|
selec posted:Twitter is great still because you can see literal billionaires getting into fights with leftist shitposters at 3am. It also helps knock a lot of public intellectuals down a few much-needed pegs because they don’t have the self control to not tweet out every dumb idea they have, or become incredibly thin skinned the moment they face any pushback. Yeah, I don't know if it's good or bad but giving everyone a street corner and an apple box sure has changed things. Say what you want about Twitter but it's had an impact mawarannahr posted:I think it’s far easier to moderate your consumption on Twitter and even Facebook if you’re a media literate person capable of curating your sources and clicking the “sort by most recent” button every now and again. The recommender system you might call “the algorithm” doesn’t really come into play. Yeah, I'd agree with that though it does seem like part of this thread is the differences between how someone media literate and not media literate are going to consume media and all of the major social media outlets (Google is one, just in a weird way) are a firehose of stupid if you're not media literate. But yeah, if you're media literate Twitter makes it easy to curate what you want to see and then it's up to you on if you're putting yourself in an echo chamber or not. You can make your feed many diverse voices, a few specific voices, and any range of credibility. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Dec 16, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2021 23:54
|
|
|
...none of you are experts in this are you?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2021 01:19
|
|
|
selec posted:I would love to discuss if people think this was just accidental or what They didn't just interview him. They allowed him to talk about how the person who accused him wasn't used as a witness in this case because she's not credible. If it wasn't intentional it's a gently caress up that shows the BBC can't be considered credible because there is no oversight. Fox news has done the same thing, given him airtime to attack those who have accused him of rape.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2021 21:30
|
|
|
I think everything from the text books are very useful but the armchair psychoanalysis is not as useful and you then contradict it at the end with quote:3. Mediators of misinformation can be human. A person who internalizes and re-spreads propaganda and gets really angry about pushback on it is a human being with emotions and a soul; they're still someone with a family and emotions who can be hurt and suffer. They may sincerely believe what they're saying or, as is often the case, they may be in that sort of autopiloted irony space where even they can't tell whether or not they believe what they say. Each person who acts as a mediator for misinformation is still a person. I think you put the point better there. It doesn't really matter what the mediator believes. Someone who 100% believes you will go to hell unless you save your soul is still producing misinformation propaganda in the service of a larger organization looking to take advantage of you. They do not have a bad bone in their body but are still producing misinformation as they are victims of it themselves. I am curious, can you profile a more moderate misinformation propagandist? Right wing too if you'd like. I think examples from across the spectrum are going to work better for people than one specific one. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Nov 6, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2022 14:24
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Ah, that makes more sense then. The way DV rephrases it helps. I think focusing on Rall as an example is hurting DV's argument and is now making we want to know why that example since it's lead to a lot of embellishment like the idea that the legitimacy model requires secrecy or a clandestine element since that's what's going on with Rall. But it doesn't. It just requires that a message be seeded in a way that it can then be repeated by a legitimate source for the propagandist to then repeat. The model just requires it to be "secret" in that the larger audience can't know about the message being seeded. The legitimizing source doesn't need to be in on the conspiracy which is the implication from the Rall example because Rall personally probably is if you make some not very hard assumptions. But they're still assumptions so they're not very useful as an example of a model which doesn't require you to make those assumptions. If I can trick the NYT into publishing that nukes exist in Iraq and I then include "according to the NYT" in my propaganda we're following the model without the NYT actually being privy to any of the secret. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 15:06 on Nov 7, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 15:04
|
|
|
Actually to throw in another example, would someone like Shep Smith during his fox new run be a good example of legitimizing? The persona he had in the wider public, and by his own words the way he saw himself, was as one of the last honest voices pushing back on all of Fox's opinion pieces and obvious propaganda. Yet was also the legitimizing voice they used when all those propaganda shows needed a legitimate voice to point to.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:No. The point of the legitimating source model is that the message is used to legitimate the propaganda outlet as a mediator. Again, Right, but P2 doesn't need to be in on the conspiracy for the model to work. Koos appears to have gotten confused on that because of the example. M1 needs to be secret from R but it doesn't mean P2 needs to be aware that they're acting as a legitimizing source which seems to be Koos original confusion. The secret in this case isn't any implication of conspiracy between P and P2, it's that M1 is secret from R. Actually WMDs in Iraq is a good example with multiple legitimating sources in the chain since you had politicians feeding things to different organizations who fed them out to media as legitimate sources who then fed it to the public as an additional legitimate source and then allowed those original politicians to use those reports as legitimate proof for things that they knew were lies.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2022 15:43
|
|
